HARI SHANKAR vs CHAMBA DISTT.FRUIT GROWERS CO-OP.INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD.

THE applicant-Shri Hari Shankar is a proprietor of M/s. Kamla Enterprises, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. It appears that the applicant was offered a sole sale distributorship for sale of products of the Chamba Distt. Fruit Growers Co-op. Industrial Society Ltd. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid towards security as duly acknowledged by the respondent vide Receipt Voucher No. 1562 dated 12th February, 1995. As per the stated agreement, the applicant was to send jars/bottles alongwith other necessary accessories of the value of Rs. 30,000/-. THE applicant sent the empty bottles to the respondent through the Amritsar Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. This was on the assurance given by and on behalf of R-2 that all the bills would be immediately paid to the applicant. When approached for payment of Rs. 50,000/- the respondent refused to pay the same and that too without assigning any reason. On account of non-fulfilment of the terms of agreement as arrived at on the part of the respondent the applicant suffered losses as under :

ON these facts as stated in the application, the applicant has asked for compensation under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) as under : In response to the notice issued to the respondent, in their replies, the respondents have denied all the allegations levelled in the compensation application. It has been stated that there is no record of placing orders of bottles and other necessary accessories on the part of the respondent. In fact there is no record for placing orders of bottles and other necessary items to the applicant. No such items have ever been supplied to R-l. On the other hand, the applicant has been given an advance of Rs. 37,612/- for purchase of raw-materials which requirement was not met. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to recover Rs. 7,612/- alongwith interest from the complainant. It has been further stated that the cooperative society has since stopped functioning at Chamba and is under liquidation. On completion of the proceedings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have been or are indulging in the unfair trade practice as alleged in the compensation application ? (2) If so, whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage due to the same or whether he is eligible for any compensation ?

Both the parties relied on the affidavit and counter-affidavit of evidence. While the applicant furnished photo copies of documents alongwith its application, no documents have been filed on behalf of the respondent.

THE learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have been heard. We have carefully considered the rival submission in the light of the documents made availables on records. THE payment of Rs. 30,000/- on behalf of the applicant stand established as evidenced by the Voucher No. 1562 dated 12th February, 1995. While no agreement in writing has been produced before us, the note appended below the said receipt shows that the amount so received by the respondent was on account of security and was for sole sale distributorship at Delhi. As per another document (Photostat copies available on record, 1100 jars were purchased for a sum of Rs. 16,224/- from Nidhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Chamba District Fruit Growers Co-operative Industrial Limited, Chamba. THE transport receipt available on record further shows the dispatch of 57 bags of empty bottles to the respondent on 24th April, 1997. THEse documents have been produced alongwith its compensation application. Truly enough, the allegation that the purchases so made and the goods so sent were funded by the applicant are not supported by any direct evidence, at the same time there is also no material placed before us to support the contention of the respondent that the applicant was paid Rs. 37,612/- towards purchase of accessories. On the other hand, the consignment of empty bottles to the respondent show that goods were sent to it Despite written agreement being not there, the documents enclosed on the part of the applicant show that there was misrepresentation on the part of the respondent for which the applicant suffered loss or damage for which it is entitled to compensation. THE respondent is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards security and Rs. 16,224/-towards purchase of accessories alongwith interest @ 12% on security deposit of Rs. 30,000/- from the date of deposit till date of payment within eight weeks from the receipt of the order and file an affidavit of compliance within four weeks thereafter. No order as to the costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. C.A. disposed of.